Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else.

When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."

> "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."

If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?

Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.

"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed

Almost. Who decides what "almost" is?

Hopefully the electorate.

"Dissent as long as a centralized authority permits it" doesn't sound great to me!

How is that different from "free speech as long as a centralized authority permits it" like you have now, besides being more specific?

Almost free speech isn't acceptable.

That is the question being discussed in the thread where you are replying.

If existing reality seems to "work", is it so bad to exclude non-establishment innovations, while the larger world/markets continue to compete and innovate?

Obviously. It’s just that I believe the people that would be/are locked up under the current laws (and the laws in my 30ish years of life) deserve what they get.

Conversely, I believe there are a lot of people in the US walking around freely that deserve to be locked up.

You're getting free speech wrong, at least by european standards. In Sweden or in France, you can certainly discuss the topics you proposed without risking prison or worse. But free speech applies to other people as well, who are equally free to refute your opinion. Free speech is not censorship merely because it stops at other people's basic rights. That's merely finding a balance between fundamental rights that may come in conflict.

Russia and China do not have free speech. If you say the wrong thing there, you go to prison (or worse). That's censorship.

Conversations about Muslim integration are sensitive enough that you wouldn't mention them in your workplace in fear of being labelled racist and possible repercussions. Not quite illegal, but its going that direction.

"If I say shitty racist things that others correctly perceive as shitty and racist people won't want to associate with me" isn't even remotely comparable to the state putting you in jail and it requires an incredibly easily bruised sense of self to suggest it.

Why do you instantly assume that anything said is "shitty and racist"? You seem to be doing the kind of thing that I am referring to - nothing in my comment was racist, but you are doing your best to imply that it is.

And potentially loosing your job is quite a big deal for most people. That's what happened to James Damore for bringing up the wrong subject.

Indeed, but you might note that happened in the US, and not Europe.

Not saying you think muslims are dangerous is at the same courtesy level as not telling your coworker his hair looks like shit every day. Nobody is going to (immediately) fire you for it, but people will definitely start avoiding you if you do it to an obnoxious degree.

I think it’s interesting that people treat Islam as closer to an ethnicity than a religion. Nobody on the left is clamoring to fight against “Christophobia”, in fact most of them actively mock religion, unless it’s Islam. I honestly don’t think organized religion should be protected from criticism, because to be fair you have to treat all religions the same. Even Scientology.

It's almost as if what you describe as mockery of Christianity is largely punching up at a secure and itself mildly- to significantly-onerous institution in the United States and that defense of Islamic people is an example of punching-down xenophobia aimed at individuals that's dressed thinly as "criticism of the religion".

If Christians were targeted by violence on American streets after 9/11 (as they were--along with, you know, completely unrelated Sikhs), "the left" would say that's wrong, too. And the reason that the status quo with regards to anti-Islam sentiment is what it is is because Americans in a whole lot of places genuinely haven't progressed much beyond that mindset.

There's a difference of kind here.

> I think there are scores of political prisoners serving time for wrongthink who might disagree with your assertion that almost free speech is working pretty well.

So you're claiming that Sweden has put people into prison because they discussed the increase in rape? Citation please.

Your whole comment is a prime example of unfounded FUD. [1]

[1] With the exception of Russia, China, and probably Ukraine, but in what world do they belong in one bucket together with Sweden or France in terms of democracy?

Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

This quote comes from Chomsky's book "Understanding power" [1], which I highly recommend reading.. more than once

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power

That reminds me of the Overton Window:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

In fact, that quote is on the Wikipedia page!

Depends on how you enforce your acceptable opinion I think. You need to find a way that makes it socially unacceptable without literally locking people up for whatever they say.

> Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here:

>> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

That sounds bad, but I wonder how Chomsky would feel if that wasn't the case and the "spectrum of acceptable opinion" included stuff like literal Nazism.

> Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK.

Like front page newspaper stories, senior politicians and even a dramatisation on the desperate-to-be-inoffensive BBC, you mean? Sure, not everybody approves of people whose take on the cases obsesses about the ethnicities of the perpetrators above all else, but free speech doesn't mean a point of view has to be agreed with.

>Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase in rape in Sweden.

Why would you not be able to do that in Sweden? How is it limited?

How hyperbolic. I'm struggling to imagine what you may have experienced, exactly, to put discussing such issues in the UK alongside discussing Tiannamen Square in China.

I had to google the UK and France stuff. Seems to be, as bad as they are, well covered single cases (one group of rapists in the UK and a couple of riots in Dijon). So what exactly are you not "allowed" to discuss?

Get a grip on reality, jumping from an non-Brit doing a 5 sec Google search and maybe 10 sec headline reading to the conclussion that some mind cover-up exists and works is really sad...

No, simply becasue they are publicly talking about it. Not much of a cover up, it seems. Especially since the government is headed by Johnson, who I would suspect to be first one to publish such things.

But whatever.

That is the same bahviour Trump shows when he retweets racist stuff. Both are unacceptable. The difference being, The MP you mentioned is part of the minority, and she deleted and the retweet and ecused herself. The article also discribes the original tweet coming from "a parody account" from a journalist.

So, you just confused the opposition, it is a Labour MP after all, with the government. And you totally ignored the origin of the retweet and the fact that the MP in question re-tweeted and did not write that tweet herself. Nice job, really.

"Trump", "racist" all the signs of a well thought through and convincing argument.

So you do admit that you have no idea what the current government party is in the UK and that you did not read or understand the article you linked. Fair enough I guess.

OK, so assuming that free speech must remain inviolate, which I don't agree with, as free speech always has limits, do you see the current state of constant misinformation working as intended? Is the United States as the founding fathers intended it?

I'm pretty sure parent meant western Europe, not China and Russia. Who would assume someone means China and Russia when talking about countries with free speech?